Re: [Mutt] #3090: Mutt removes In-Reply-To header field

[Mutt <fleas@xxxxxxxx>]

#3090: Mutt removes In-Reply-To header field

Comment (by Aron Griffis):

 {{{
 The problem here is that mutt is more liberal parsing Message-Id
 than it is parsing In-Reply-To; see mutt_extract_message_id() vs.
 mutt_parse_references() in parse.c

 So when mutt initially builds the message, it copies the
 Message-Id to the In-Reply-To without additional checking.  But
 when edit_headers is set, mutt parses the In-Reply-To line
 according to the stricter rules.  Technically there shouldn't be
 two "@" signs in the In-Reply-To, so it drops the header
 entirely.

 The solution is either to tighten mutt_extract_message_id() or
 loosen mutt_parse_references().  Personally I'd go with the
 latter; probably no harm done to accept multiple "@" signs, and
 mutt will still adhere to RFC 822 in its own generation of the
 Message-Id.  Postel's law.
 }}}

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://dev.mutt.org/trac/ticket/3090#comment:>